In the Matter of the Petition by ) December 8, 1999 ) JERRY DANIELS ) 4704 Kilbane Road ) ) at ) ) Woodbridge, VA 22193-4605 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-420 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Jerry Daniels 4704 Kilbane Road Woodbridge, VA 22193-4605 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Carol E. McCrarey Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 8409 Lee Highway Merrifield, VA 22081-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Jerry Daniels, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated September 22, 1999 from his Station Manager, Thomas Rimmer. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $602.67 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in Petitioner's flexible credit account, discovered in an audit on July 20, 1999.
A hearing was held in Merrifield, Virginia on November 9, 1999. The Postal Service presented testimony from Dexter Jones, who conducted the July 20, 1999 audit, and Petitioner's current supervisor, Ms. Ajrawat. Petitioner presented his own testimony and also called Mr. Rimmer, George Wooten, a supervisory clerk, and Carolyn Foxx, another clerk. Both sides also presented some documents and also relied on documents that were filed with the Petition and the Answer. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has been a Postal Service employee for approximately 20 years. From sometime in 1997 until July 1999, he was a window clerk at the Trade Center Station in Alexandria, Virginia. (Tr. 8, 123).(1) Earlier in his career, he had been a supervisor and had supervised window clerks (Tr. 123).
2. As a window clerk, Petitioner was assigned a stamp stock credit for which he was accountable (PS Ex. 4). Clerk credits are required to be audited at least every four months (Tr. 8). Petitioner's stamp stock was counted on June 18, 1999 and found to be short $748.39 (Tr. 21, 113-14; PS Ex. 4). That shortage is not the subject of this case.
3. On about July 3, 1999, Petitioner moved from the Trade Center Station to another post office. He returned to the Trade Center on July 19, 1999 for the purpose of counting his stamp stock so that it could be turned over to another clerk, Carolyn Foxx. No one else worked out of this stock or had access to it in the meantime. The count began on July 19, but because of interruptions it was aborted and begun again on July 20, 1999. The count was conducted by the supervisor, Dexter Jones, along with Petitioner and Ms. Foxx. (Tr. 8, 14-15, 94, 115).
4. Before starting the count, Mr. Jones obtained Petitioner's opening balance from the station "T-6," George Wooten.(2) The opening balance is the amount of stock and cash that should have been in Petitioner's account. (Tr. 10-11, 28, 81). The opening balance was $15,322.43, which is recorded on line 22 of a PS Form 3294. Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, is the form used to record clerk audits. (PS Ex. 2).
5. All three participants counted the stock individually and all three signed the Form 3294, agreeing that the total amount present was $14,719.76. This figure is recorded on line 21 of the form. (PS Ex. 4). During the count, each of the three used his/her own copy of a Form 3294. PS Ex. 4 is the copy completed by Mr. Jones and signed by all three participants. Line 23 of that form shows $602.67 as the difference between the opening balance and the stock actually present. Petitioner's copy of the form, which Petitioner and Mr. Jones signed, shows only the stock that was counted, $14,719.76. The lines for the opening balance and the difference are blank. (Pet. Ex. 1). Ms. Foxx did not bring her copy of the form to the hearing, but she recalled that it had both the stock counted and the opening balance recorded on it. She did not recall that the difference, $602.67, was on her form. (Tr. 102-106).
6. It is Mr. Jones' usual procedure in conducting clerk audits to enter the opening balance on the Form 3294 before starting the count, and to enter the count total and the difference (shortage or overage) on the form before signing the form. He signs the form before giving it to the clerks to sign. (Tr. 54-56). At the conclusion of the audit on July 20, 1999, there was no discussion between Mr. Jones and Petitioner as to whether the account was short or over (Tr. 29).
7. PS Form 1412 is a computer-generated record of a clerk's daily transactions. Each clerk has a copy of this form at the close of each day. A clerk could obtain his/her opening balance by looking at the previous day's Form 1412. A clerk at the Trade Center Station could also obtain his/her opening balance by asking the T-6, Mr. Wooten, to retrieve it. (Tr. 50-51, 78-80, 99).
8. Mr. Jones issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand for $602.67 on August 6, 1999 (Tr. 22; PS Ex. 1). The reason for the delay from the date of the audit, July 20, was because Mr. Jones wished to confirm that there was no connection between the July 20 shortage and the previous shortage on June 18, 1999, and also because Petitioner was no longer working at the Trade Center Station. He had to be released by his new supervisor to return to the Trade Center Station to be given the Letter of Demand. (Tr. 22-23, 34-36, 60). Mr. Jones did confirm that the June 18 shortage and the July 20 shortage were not related, and Petitioner has not claimed that they were (Tr. 53).
9. Among other things, the Letter of Demand advised Petitioner that he could file a grievance under Grievance/Arbitration procedures within 14 days of receipt of the letter. Petitioner protested the alleged shortage and refused to accept the Letter of Demand, so Mr. Jones sent a copy of the letter to Petitioner's new supervisor, Ms. Ajrawat, to give to him, which she later did (Tr. 24, 60-61).
10. PS Form 1908 is a form used by a District Accounting Office to make accounting adjustments to correct clerk errors in accounting entries. During his time as a window clerk, Petitioner received more than an average number of Form 1908s. (Tr. 71-72, 91-92).
DECISION
Petitioner argues that management did not act in good faith in handling this matter because Mr. Jones did not tell him at the conclusion of the audit on July 20 that the account was short. He contends that he did not know he was short until August 6, and argues that the delay from July 20 to August 6 was unduly long and deprived him of the opportunity to file a grievance, or take some other action to resolve the apparent shortage.
Respondent relies on the July 20 audit and the fact that all three participants signed the Form 3294 indicating that they agreed the count was accurate. As to Petitioner's claim that he was unaware of the shortage, Respondent argues that it is not reasonable to believe that a clerk would participate fully in an audit of his account and then sign the Form 3294 without knowing what the opening balance was supposed to be and without even inquiring whether he was short or over. Respondent also contends that Petitioner's recent previous shortage on June 18, 1999, and his higher-than-average number of financial discrepancies, demonstrate a lack of reasonable care in managing his stamp stock.
The standard for determining an employee’s liability in a case such as this provides that employees to whom postal funds and accountable paper are consigned (such as Petitioner) "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), §141. Respondent’s burden of proof in a case of unexplained shortage is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which the employee is accountable. Respondent is not required to prove any specific dereliction, or act of negligence, by Petitioner. When a properly conducted inventory, or audit, shows a stock shortage relative to a previously established balance, this constitutes proof of loss unless other evidence raises sufficient doubt about the accuracy of the inventory or the previously established balance, or otherwise suggests that there may have been no actual loss. If Respondent proves a loss, the burden then shifts to the employee to show that he or she followed established procedures, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving the employee of liability.
In this case, the audit on July 20, 1999 is sufficient to prove a loss. Three separate people counted the stock and all agreed the count was accurate. There is no evidence to suggest that the count was not accurate, or that the opening balance was incorrect. Petitioner's argument that he was somehow harmed by Mr. Jones' failure to directly inform him that the count showed a shortage is not persuasive. First of all, Petitioner's testimony that he was unaware of the shortage until August 6 lacks credibility. The testimony of both Mr. Jones and Ms. Foxx was that at least the figures showing the opening balance and the final count were on the Form 3294 when Petitioner signed it. Petitioner is experienced in these matters, had been charged with a large shortage only a month earlier, and had not worked out of that account for more than two weeks. It is not credible that he would be unconcerned on July 20 what his opening balance was, or whether his account was short or over, and that he would sign the count sheet without knowing, or asking if he did not know. Second, even if he did not know of the shortage until August 6, there is no evidence that this caused him harm. Contrary to his claim that he lost his opportunity to file a grievance, his 14 days did not start until August 6 and the letter states that clearly (FOF #9).(3) His suggestion that the delay created an opportunity for someone to "tamper" with his account, or for something else to go wrong, is pure speculation. There is no evidence that anything of this sort occurred.
As to the matter of whether Petitioner could be relieved of liability under the quoted standard because he followed established procedures, the evidence does not show that he did. The burden is on the Petitioner to make this showing by a preponderance of evidence, and Petitioner presented no evidence on this point. Further, Respondent presented some evidence that suggests that Petitioner did not always follow established procedures or exercise reasonable care (FOF #2 and #10).
The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $602.67 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge